August 03, 2010

Still more predictable local idiocy from the wisher of death upon Republicans

That "guy" who has wished that all Republicans be rounded up and shot now treats us all to his legal skills (hard to believe this doofus is an attorney) with the post Constitutional Conservatives. After spending numerous paragraphs falsely claiming that the GOP wants to "repeal the 14th Amendment," Delaware Dunce finally gets down to business: the issue of potentially changing the birthright provision to the Constitution which is located in the 14th Amendment. Oh, and of course, DD throws around the word "bigotry" a lot, too. *Sigh*

Let's dissect this nonsense, shall we?

You are anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives. Which ever works for you. Got that?

This non-sensical quote comes towards the end of DD's post. Now remember, this "guy's" a lawyer, and he is claiming that investigating an amendment to the Constitution -- clearly provided for IN the Constitution -- is "anti-constitutional!" You can't make this stuff up. This sort of logic means that granting the franchise to blacks and women is "anti-constitutional," not to mention eradicating the poll tax and implementing an income tax. You follow my point? And I don't mean the point on DD's head.

This clause was historically important in Constitutional history, as it explicitly overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, a case that conservatives use as a dog whistle code word, most memorably George W. Bush in the 2000 debates, concerning abortion. That decision had ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. How that relates to abortion I cannot fathom, but anti-choicers love to equate abortion and slavery.

You can't fathom it because, simply, you're an idiot.

Dred Scott ruled that slaves were property -- therefore not legally human beings -- and THAT is what George Bush (and other pro-lifers) argue when they bring up that "dog whistle code word" with regards to abortion. So, what is your view, DD -- are black people "property" or "human beings?" And then, is a 29-week old fetus "property" ... or a "human being?" Careful now ... do you want to make yourself out to be a preposterous moral relativist?

Now we really get silly:

While we are at it, can we strike redheads from being citizens? How about short people? How about people who disagree with our political views? How about a racial minority? Indeed, since this very important first sentence overturned Dredd [sic] Scott, repealing the Amendment to strike this first sentence automatically means Dredd Scott is now good law, which of course means that blacks are no longer citizens of the United States.

This debate over who is a citizen is absurd. Indeed, for certain conservatives, it is contradictory, for they were all hot and bothered just a short while ago about President Obama being BORN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!! And now, all of a sudden, being born in this country is of no importance?

1) No one -- again -- is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. Delaware Dunce is merely practicing what his fellow rabid moonbat "progressives" do ad nauseum, and that is repeat a falsehood again, and again, and again until people begin accepting it as fact. (See: racial epithets hurled by Tea Partiers to members of the Congressional Black Caucus; that the Tea Party is incorrigibly racist; that Fox News is responsible for Shirley Sherrod being fired from her job; Etc.)

2) Since the federal government continually refuses to its job in terms of illegal immigration, why is examining a possible repeal of the birthright provision -- a significant factor in illegal immigration -- a bad thing? After all, the United States is only one country out of a "whopping" 16% on the entire planet that allows birthright citizenship! And not a single European country -- y'know, those nations that "progressives" admire so much -- is one of that 16%.

And just ignore Dunce's ridiculous "But can short people be citizens?" crap. That's just pure stupidity attempting to masquerade as "thought." The most obvious answer to a possible amendment to change the 14th would be to allow birthright citizenship only to citizens and legal residents. And it would most assuredly take an amendment to make this change, not, as some conservatives argue, that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” provision of the 14th allows Congress to merely pass a law changing the birthright clause. That, because as an intelligent attorney notes,

... is basically the conservative equivalent of liberals arguing that “well-regulated militia” means “kindly ignore the following clause in its entirety” and “freedom of the press” means “let’s prohibit all corporations that don’t own newspapers from expressing political views at any time when voters are in any danger of acting on those views.”

And the inimitable Xrlq then adds to my own argument:

Not all bad ideas are unconstitutional, and not all good ideas are constitutional. A ban on anchor babies is a good idea, but it’s unconstitutional. So let’s amend the Constitution to fix that ...

How 'bout that? A lawyer that makes perfect sense -- one that recognizes the inanity of a fellow lawyer claiming that amending the Constitution is "anti-Constitutional." After all, the proof is right here for all to see.

Posted by Hube at August 3, 2010 11:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

"Let's amendment the Constitution?" Hikes, I speaks English real good. Thanks for the link BTW.

Posted by: Xrlq at August 4, 2010 11:17 AM

Oops! I should have caught that. Will fix right away!!

And my pleasure, amigo.

Posted by: Hube at August 4, 2010 11:20 AM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?